Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_3/v9_352.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYDly5y00UkZEJ8E4i>;
          Sun,  9 Apr 89 05:16:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  9 Apr 89 05:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #352

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 352

Today's Topics:
                Ozone
     Astronauts named for two space science missions (Forwarded)
            Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
            Re: Apollo [non] Fire
        Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
                  Re: Ozone
            Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
            Magellan's Trajectory
              Re: Magellan's Trajectory
            Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
              Re: alien contact
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
              Re: Magellan's Trajectory
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 22:20:44 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!parsely!agora!ihf1![e-mail]  (Stephen Hutchison)
Subject: Ozone

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vincent J. Erickson) writes:
<...>
>A more elegant solution might be a sunscreen, rather than a reflector.
>A large enough piece of mylar which allows all the visible light, but
>reflects some of the infra-red light. This would keep shadows from
>projecting on the Earth. This same method would be useful for blocking
>ultraviolet radiation in the event we destroy the ozone layer as well.

Could some kind person clarify this for me?  I've been told by an acquaintance
who I would expect to have some knowledge of chemistry, that the Ozone layer
gets rebuilt at night (since catalysts work both ways) and that it may actually
be rebuilt somewhat in excess of the day's losses.  Has anyone tested this?
He seemed convinced it was true and adequately explained the difference between
the expected readings and the actual measurements.

Hutch

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 23:23:46 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Astronauts named for two space science missions (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    April 5, 1989

Jeffrey Carr
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE:  89-44

ASTRONAUTS NAMED FOR TWO SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS

     Astronaut crew members have been named for two scientific
Space Shuttle missions scheduled for launch in 1990.

     USAF Col. Steven R. Nagel will be commander of the Space
Shuttle Discovery on mission STS-37.  USMC Lt. Col. Kenneth
D. Cameron will serve as pilot.  Mission specialists are USAF
Lt. Col. Jerry L. Ross, Jay Apt, Ph.D., and Linda M. Godwin,
Ph.D.

     Following Discovery's launch next April, the crew will
deploy the Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO) from the payload bay using
the Shuttle's robot arm.  The GRO will explore gamma ray sources
throughout the universe, studying the origin of our own galaxy
and others, and examining quasars, pulsars and supernova remnants
from an altitude of 243 miles above the Earth.

     USMC Col. Bryan D. O'Connor will be commander of STS-40, the
space and life sciences-dedicated mission, SLS-1.  Serving as
pilot aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia will be USAF Col. John
E. Blaha.  Also named as a mission specialist is Tamara E.
Jernigan.

     SLS-1 mission specialists M. Rhea Seddon, M.D., and James
P. Bagian, M.D., and payload specialists F. Drew Gaffney, Ph.D.,
and Robert W. Phillips, Ph.D., were named previously.

     Inside a pressurized laboratory fixed in Columbia's payload
bay, the SLS-1 crew will conduct more than two dozen life
sciences investigations in the microgravity environment.  Launch

     Nagel has flown twice in space -- as a mission specialist on
Shuttle mission STS 51-G in June 1985 and as pilot on STS 61-A in
October 1985.  He was born Oct. 27, 1946, in Canton, Ill.

     Cameron will make his first space flight.  He was born
Nov. 29, 1949, in Cleveland, Ohio.

     Ross has previously flown on two Shuttle missions, STS 61-B
in November 1985 and STS-27 last December.  Ross was born Jan.
20, 1948, in Crown Point, Ind.

     Apt will make his first space flight.  He was born April 28,
1949, in Springfield, Mass., but considers Pittsburgh, Pa., to be
his hometown.

     Godwin also will make her first flight in space.  She was
born July 2, 1952, in Cape Girardeau, Mo.

     O'Connor has flown previously as pilot on STS 61-B in
November 1985.  After the Challenger accident, he was named
chairman of NASA's Space Flight Safety Panel.  O'Connor was born
Sept. 6, 1946, in Orange, Calif., but considers Twentynine Palms,
Calif., to be his hometown.

     Blaha made his first space flight last month as pilot of
STS-29.  He was born Aug. 26, 1942, in San Antonio, Texas.

     Jernigan will make her first flight in space.  She was born
May 7, 1959, in Chattanooga, Tenn., but considers Santa Fe
Springs, Calif., to be her hometown.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 13:47:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy![e-mail]
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89


Yes, there was a control group of 16 that was not launched....  The
experiment was based here at Purdue so I have been hearing a lot of it
lately, I'll try to drum up some paper articles to post here.

                   Rob Dale - tippy![e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 02:30:44 GMT
From: epiwrl![e-mail]  (Alan Parker)
Subject: Re: Apollo [non] Fire

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve) writes:
>When Apollo 13 had an electrical fire, loss of some power and system
>failure, they said "uh, Houston, we have a problem." somewhat toned
>down for public consumption.
>

There was no electrical fire.  A tank ruptured.  I suspect that the time
of that transmission, that is exactly all they knew; that "we have a
problem".

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 04:28:55 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (John S. Watson)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)


Any chance that a German V-2 could be stuck in the mud off Prenemunde (sp?)?

John S. Watson, Civil Servent from Hell        ARPA: [e-mail]
NASA Ames Research Center                      UUCP:  ...!ames!watson
Any opinions expressed herein are, like, solely the responsibility of the, like,
author and do not, like, represent the opinions of NASA or the U.S. Government.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 13:27:20 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Rodman) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve) writes:
}>When Apollo 13 had an electrical fire, loss of some power and system
}>failure, they said "uh, Houston, we have a problem." somewhat toned
}>down for public consumption.
}I belive the quote was "Uh, Houston, we have a problem here.".
}
}I think toned down due to the nature of the Astronaut saying it, not for
}any worry of public consumption.

Then again, when Challenger exploded, the special report on CBS started with
"There has been a major malfunction...."

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
            Disclaimer? I claimed something?
    You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 13:41:19 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Ozone

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stephen Hutchison) writes:
> [...] I've been told by an acquaintance who I would expect to have some
> knowledge of chemistry, that the Ozone layer gets rebuilt at night
> (since catalysts work both ways) and that it may actually
> be rebuilt somewhat in excess of the day's losses.  [...]

Ozone molecules are formed by the action of UV light on oxygen (smell an
EPROM eraser after it has been used!).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 20:07:51 GMT
From: aablue![e-mail]  (John B Scalia)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Pipes ) writes:
>     Howeird,
>     (Cool name...)
>     CBS News stated, several days after the landing, that the
>experiment was done with a control group, and implied that none had
>died from that group (it could have been that only the 'expected'
>number had died...I am not sure.  What floored everyone is that the
>expected results were on the order of deformities, low hatching weight
>or the like.  No one expected dead chickens.  Furthermore, it appears
>that the most vulnerable ones were those in very early stages of
>development.  This could be very important to people who want to design
> [some deletions]

I have to question whether some conclusions may be being drawn here that
absolutely cannot be made. Without some definitive details as to the time
of embryo death, how can we decide that "spaceflight" is not conducive to
reproduction. I'd really like to know more details about this. For
instance, did all the embryos die at once or over a period? Were they killed
at liftoff, due to G-stresses? Could we design an experiment to fertilize
additional eggs once space-borne and allow them to come to term? Really,
I believe this is opening a can worms, not answering anything.
----
--
A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio [phone] voice
UUCP:       {uunet!}aablue!jb    Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
FidoNet:   1:157/697        wants to spend their life in an institution.
EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 14:16:19 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Magellan's Trajectory


   I've read that Magellan will take 15 MONTHS to reach Venus. A minimum
energy Hohman trajectory from Earth to Venus only takes on the order of 8
months or so.  Anyone know why they are sending it on such a roundabout
trajectory ???


                   Marc  Bonin

                  University of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 00:15:22 GMT
From: m2c!wpi![e-mail]  (Tom [Chris] Murphy)
Subject: Re: Magellan's Trajectory

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc Bonin) writes:
>   I've read that Magellan will take 15 MONTHS to reach Venus. A minimum
>energy Hohman trajectory from Earth to Venus only takes on the order of 8
>months or so.  Anyone know why they are sending it on such a roundabout
>trajectory ???

Apparantly the optimum launch time for a Venus trajectory is in October,
which is when Galileo will be launched to Juptier.  Because the liquid-fuel
Centaur stage will not be carried aboard the shuttle, a less powerful solid
rocket must be used to launch the Jupitee probe, requiring a gravitational
assist from Venus.  So Magellan must settle for a less optimum launch
time.  (Galileo will take some 2.5 years to get to Jupiter I believe.)

Tom

--
Thomas C. Murphy         Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
Internet:   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
BITNET:     TMURPHY@WPI              CompuServe: 73766,130
               "I drank what?" - Socrates

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 14:11:24 GMT
From: dftsrv!nssdcs![e-mail]  (David Pipes )
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John B Scalia) writes:
>
>I have to question whether some conclusions may be being drawn here that
>absolutely cannot be made. Without some definitive details as to the time
>of embryo death, how can we decide that "spaceflight" is not conducive to
>reproduction. I'd really like to know more details about this. For
>instance, did all the embryos die at once or over a period? Were they killed
>at liftoff, due to G-stresses? Could we design an experiment to fertilize
>additional eggs once space-borne and allow them to come to term? Really,
>I believe this is opening a can worms, not answering anything.

     I agree that the experiment poses more questions than it answers.
All of those you list are good, but the point is that no one seemed to
expect that they would actually have to be tried (at least, that is the
impression the Washington Post gave in their article.)  Now that the
last of the eggs sent up have died -- even those which survived the trip
 -- it still seems that no one understands why.  So perhaps some of
these possible experiments will happen.
     The original poster wondered why we should do them at all.  I just
pointed out that there are things which we don't know which could be
useful in the future.
>----
>--
>A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio [phone] voice
>UUCP:       {uunet!}aablue!jb    Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
>FidoNet:   1:157/697        wants to spend their life in an institution.
>EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0



| EMail: [e-mail]        David Pipes      |
| Vox: [phone]                                       |
| These opinions are mine, not my employers.  You may share |
| them, but please put them back neatly when you are done.  |

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1989 12:50-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: alien contact

> Yup, clearly the people who can fly an entirely unmanned shuttle mission
> with a crosswind landing and a launch in freezing weather, perfectly,
> the first time, are ahead on quality.  Same conclusion -- they'll go to
> Baikonur.

Gee, is this some comment about that other shuttle? The one that blows
up in freezing weather, can't take off in a crosswind and can't land near
its takeoff site because of crosswind limitations?

Naaahh.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 16:12:08 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James C. Benz) writes:
}>Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy,
}>why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until
}>you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate?
}
}Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
}the fuel consumption is to be kept sane.  I did the calculation in sci.space
}a week or two ago; it was way up in the terawatts, as I recall, given some
}reasonable assumptions.

uh, friend...

Maybe terawatt-hours? terawatt is, I believe, power, not energy....

And as such, while the momentary power requirements would be in terms of
watts, that would say nothing about the energy requirements (except,
perhaps, for peak load).

I hope you watched your units in your calculations...


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"
                    - D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 17:39:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Magellan's Trajectory

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc Bonin) writes:
>
>   I've read that Magellan will take 15 MONTHS to reach Venus. A minimum
>energy Hohman trajectory from Earth to Venus only takes on the order of 8
>months or so.  Anyone know why they are sending it on such a roundabout
>trajectory ???

I believe that they're doing something like a 'double Hohman' orbit; the
first loop in, Venus will be somewhere else, but the second time, it will
be there.  The launch window for a 'single Hohman' is in October, which
they're reserving for Galileo; the decision to abandon the Centaur liquid-
fuel booster can be thanked for this.  Instead of a direct shot to Jupiter,
Galileo will make a loop in towards Venus, out to Earth, and (I think)
a *second* loop in to Venus and Earth before heading out, to build up
velocity.  Since the double loop orbit is the only option for a while, they
went ahead and took it, to get the thing off the ground.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: [e-mail]        :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #352
*******************